In a patent infringement suit involving a patent directed to electrochemical sensors for measuring glucose levels in blood, district court's entry of judgment that certain claims of plaintiff's '890 patent are infringed but are invalid is affirmed where: 1) although the district court's instruction on the law of anticipation was legally erroneous, the jury could not have returned a different verdict as the asserted claims would have been obvious as a matter of law; and 2) defendant's cross-appeal is dismissed, as there is no basis for a cross-appeal as to claims of noninfringement where the district court has entered a judgment of invalidity as to all of the asserted claims.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Decided January 25, 2010
Opinion by Dyk, Circuit Judge
For Appellee: Bradford J. Badke, Ropes & Gray LLP